rjb43nh

There may be a better way, but to embed a photo within my listing I first go to the upper right on my listing page under “Admin Tools” and click on “Upload Images” and select the photo from my hard drive that I want to use in the listing. I have previously edited and saved the image the size I want it to be, for instance, 1024 pixels wide by 704 pixels high. I then go the lower left of the listing page just above “Logged Visits” where the image I just uploaded is listed and click on the image name to display the image on screen. I then right-click on the image and that opens a dialog box where I click on “Copy Image Location” which gives me a “https….dot jpg” location that looks something like http://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/8a8a92c9-9bba-457c-9993-485ef47099e8.jpg . I again right-click on the image and now click on “View Image Info” then “General” and write down the width and height from the first (Title) line that I will need in the next step. I then paste the photo link above in the following lines so they read <br><p align="center"> <img src="INSERT PHOTO LINK FROM ABOVE HERE" width="1024" height="704" /> <br> and I paste these lines into the listing where I want the photo displayed. Before inserting these lines in the listing make sure you have checked the box that says: “The descriptions below are in HTML.” An example of a cache using this method is my GC6DG9D puzzle cache. I’m not too good at HTML but after multiple tries I’ve found this does the job.

If you try to use a handheld GPS receiver such as a Garmin 64S in the middle of a city with tall buildings like Chicago, you can find readings that are up to 1000 feet off. The reason is signal reflections off some buildings and signal blockage by other buildings. To get best accuracy you need a clear view of the sky and an adequate number of GPS or GLONASS satellites in view. In the wild, trees, cliffs, etc., can also cause errors. As to smartphone GPS accuracy, GPS.gov says: “GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky”. GPS.gov also says: “... the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. To be clear, URE is not user accuracy. User accuracy depends on a combination of satellite geometry, URE, and local factors such as signal blockage, atmospheric conditions, and receiver design features/quality.“

I've found over 1000 FTFs and have encountered none of the problems described in this thread which to me has been pretty pointless.

Some of my puzzles use made up stories. For example: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCRPK5

I use http://exifdata.com/ to view EXIF data.

I just tried 'Get Geocaches' and 'Google Maps' and got no error code. Running the latest WIN 10 as of yesterday.

While there have been no NM logs on this cache, I have deleted quite a few 'found' logs from one of my caches where cachers have complained they couldn't sign the log because the container doesn't seal and the log was totally soaked. Ever since I started getting these logs, the cache listing page has multiple prominent warnings to not sign the soggy broken letterbox that is out in the open nearby because those logs won't count. I do check the physical cache logbook to make sure whether cachers have signed or not before deleting any logs. I always send an email to the cacher explaining what I'm doing and why and tell them that if they return and sign the real cache logbook that is nice and dry they can relog. There is also a photo of the real cache container and dry logbook that I added to the cache page to see if that helps. If there is a real problem with any of my caches I want to know so the problem can be corrected and I have got NM logs on some of my caches. Any that can't be corrected are archived.

AZcachemeister: "Yes, I know. But I still don't see the point." Actually if you're into geocaching it's called a 'waypoint', not a point. ;-)

Finally got the #3 email sent directly to me. Sat down and solved the message after I got back from an early morning FTF.

VTMountainBiker - "I do have a private bouy, but I'm not sure I want people coming to my bouy with a boat on it. Which is why I wanted to put it on a bouy in the middle of the lake." What I find really funny is you don't want anyone coming near your buoy so you want to put the cache on a buoy owned by someone else. ;-)

My latest puzzle took about 2 months for a find in an area with a lot of cachers who are really into puzzles. The first logger did mention the puzzle was easy once he 'saw' it. I thought it would be found sooner with an LED headlamp as a FTF prize. Sometimes you can stare at a puzzle forever then all of a sudden you slap your forehead because for some reason you look at it differently and get it.

Count me among those that haven't even got a reply from Groundspeak. I've managed to get the puzzles from other sources and solve them but it is annoying to do everything suggested and not get the puzzle directly, or even get a reply to an email request.

Don't go to gc.com unless you're into sports. geocaching.com will work much better.

After finally finding the 'secret message' and getting the answer, it reminded me of the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring in the movie, "A Christmas Story". 3 minute video clip follows...

Per Groundspeak on Mission GC: "I cannot solve the puzzle(s). What can I do? Search for nearby geocaching events and meet with other geocachers to work together. Or contact us for a hint." Not so different than any puzzle, cache or otherwise. Any public posting is tacky. Face-to-face meetings with other cachers working together on a problem or Private emails or following the instructions above is perfectly o.k.

I'm sure others will give a more detailed explanation of the Groundspeak terms of use but in 2D it lists this as a violation: "Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner." Cache owners who create these puzzles generally don't want the answers broadcast. It is o.k. to email the owner to ask for hints.

Seeing this has been brought up in the forums, and as one of the finders on these three multis, I’ll give my critique. On the specific multi referenced by the OP, two of us who found the cache have over 12,000 and 20,000 finds with several hundred multi finds and over 2,000 mystery finds each so we aren’t inexperienced finding these types of caches. One of our favorite series took us over a year to complete and we had to drive about 70 miles every time we tried to solve another step so we don’t always expect easy caches or instant gratification. However, we do expect clear unambiguous directions and I have found some of these instructions rather convoluted and confusing. As others posters have said, if you solve for a waypoint and go there you expect to either be right at an object or be able to see the required information from that exact location, if you have to wander almost 200’ from one of the waypoint as we had to do on this cache, searching for some obliquely referenced object, it isn’t geocaching, it’s letterboxing. At one of the other waypoints the cache owner had us looking for something he thought served no purpose but we clearly saw the purpose and it took some time and more searching to come to the conclusion that the object we knew didn’t actually fit his description actually was what we were looking for. Also, as mentioned by cachers who found some or all of these three multis, there were experienced cachers who had to backtrack and revisit some waypoints multiple times, which does lead to frustration and points to either ambiguity, imprecise wording, or poor choice of hint. There is also nothing that says you have to do the cache the way the owner set it up. If you can see a quicker legal way to solve the puzzle, take it. Checksums aren’t always the best way to improve verifying an answer to a waypoint question and in the latest multi that added check definitely made one waypoint a giveaway. A case where experience helped was at the final where we couldn’t get the numbers to make any sense but we could guess the general area within several hundred feet. We search likely spots when I remembered an archived cache from a few years back that was hidden here and found the cache container in the exact same spot. My suggestion for NHAnimator is to read the post from The A-Team and carefully follow his advice which will improve these caches and make cachers searching for his future multis much happier.

Add Berry2370 to the list.

I just got this message a few minutes ago and it looks like unverified member Norris3116 (member since 1/9/2016)with no finds or hides is sending out this message: "Hey! Check out {removed} if you want to view all the premium caches in your area for FREE!!" I'll let someone else check it out because I'm not going to. (edit to disable hot link)

Twinklekitkat, I took a look at your interesting puzzles and solved all seven last night, in case you were wondering about the recent activity on your caches. The one puzzle I had the most trouble with was one of the easier ones because I kept grabbing the wrong numbers. I do look at puzzles from other parts of the country and even though I'm from New Hampshire I have solved and found a number in Nevada (about 90) and cached in Pennsylvania. I agree that trying to somehow block some cachers is not the answer. If it's any consolation the people who use the cheat sites will probably never travel to look for your caches, too much physical effort.

Before making a trip west from New Hampshire I solved a few of his puzzles. While I was out out there I didn't find one so I emailed him and got a reply the same day.

I think I liked the OP better when he'd crawl out from under his bridge and complain about puzzle caches (of which he has found several hundred.).

I believe one solution to problems like this would be to make the cache a multi. In the secret compartment in the container with the false bottom (waypoint #1) would be a slip of paper with the coordinates for the final instead of a log book. The log book you'd have to sign would be in the container for the final. Knowing the cache was a multi (from the listing), a cacher would know they'd have to find coordinates to another stage with the log book.

Well, if your standard for a find were objective rules, or their method was not 'allowed' by the CO, then maybe. But in many cases they're not. Especially in context of the ET - did they "lie" or "cheat"? No, provided they didn't break any rules. They just have a different (and CO-condoned) standard.............................. I apologize for not using the sarcasm emoticon. If you thought I was accusing anyone of lying or cheating, you missed my point. I was trying to say that is how the naysayers would look at anyone who does more than they do, I don't really care.

quote "That's because the kind of amimals I'm talking about don't tend to frequent these forums " Are you referring to unicorns?